- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trade Data Shows Trump’s Tariffs Are Working
Posted on 6/10/26 at 2:44 pm to Jjdoc
Posted on 6/10/26 at 2:44 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Again. There are trade offs in every system
Good grief. Your response to the government forcing every person who buys goods in America subsidize the income of a tiny percentage of Americans is, “Well yeah, there are always trade-offs.”
If you look at it that way, sure. If I drop dead of a heart attack tomorrow, at least I won’t have to pay taxes next year, right?
quote:
"Free Trade", sold to the USA by FDR (should say alot), has devastated jobs here
No, it hasn’t. I already posted how many jobs we’d be talking about if the government forced every American company to only produce here. 3.5% of all the jobs in the country. And as SFP has pointed out, the vast majority of the high end, well paying manufacturing jobs never left. We still lead the world in those.
quote:
Tariffs will generate jobs and raise wages while keeping critical needs in house
Tariffs have the potential to onshore a very few mediocre paying jobs and a lot of $15 an hour jobs. And even if what you said is true, surely you have realize that prices would go up in proportion to wages, right?
Taking two steps forward and then two steps back is not a “trade-off. It’s a waste of time and energy.
quote:
That weakened wage bargaining.
It’s amazing to me that y'all can understand the principles here one way but not the reverse application of the same principle. You are literally arguing for artificially inflated wages. Which of course then translates into artificially inflated prices. For everyone. So that a small fraction of American workers can benefit.
3
Posted on 6/10/26 at 2:59 pm to wackatimesthree
You are full of shite.
U.S. manufacturing employment peaked around 19.6 million jobs in June 1979 and was around 12.8 million in June 2019, a drop of about 6.7 million manufacturing jobs. By May 2026, manufacturing employment was about 12.6 million, still far below the old peak.
Those jobs would have increased in numbers to meet demands.
Care to guess how many people ended up with some form of government assistance?
You are being near sited
U.S. manufacturing employment peaked around 19.6 million jobs in June 1979 and was around 12.8 million in June 2019, a drop of about 6.7 million manufacturing jobs. By May 2026, manufacturing employment was about 12.6 million, still far below the old peak.
Those jobs would have increased in numbers to meet demands.
Care to guess how many people ended up with some form of government assistance?
You are being near sited
Posted on 6/10/26 at 3:14 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Feel free to demonstrate how paying more for labor makes the owner more wealthy.
quote:Sorry. I'm not following. How do I end up with more money if I pay $3/mask than if I pay $1/mask? I get strategic importance. But that's an added expense for "just in case". I'm not wealthier for it--just like I'm not wealthier for buying insurance I don't use. I don't see the sense of paying more for 'rubber dog poop' during peace time so we can make it if we go to war.
You mean like, for example, domestic manufacturers of N95 masks in 2020? Domestic chip producers in the event of a China-Taiwan War? Those would certainly stand out as examples.
quote:Nope. This is like saying if we paid all fast food workers $100 they would be come as economical valuable as people with welders making that kind of wage. Ironically, that's commonly the claim of minimum-wage advocates.
If labor an production cost increase is universal, utility and innovation will assuredly make some owners more wealthy.
But then again, tariffs are just a n effort establishing a price floor--just like minimum wage does.
As business owner that hires EXTREMELY technical skilled employees, I can assure you, I cannot hire someone off the street, pay them $120/hr and transform them into a qualified data modeler and analyst.
quote:Who claimed there was impending catastrophe?
That observation is not so much to negate your point as it is to demonstrate lack of some sort of impending catastrophe.
quote:
Tariffs are in place. Downside is exposed. We've already borne witness to any negatives. Yet, the positive aspects -- re-shoring, employment opportunities, etc -- have yet to fully manifest.
Kinda like being 2-3 days away from signing an agreement.This post was edited on 6/10/26 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 6/10/26 at 3:31 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:Because during the pandemic you could sell them for $15/mask ... if you had domestic manufacturing capacity. Meanwhile, if you outsourced prepandemic production to save cost, you had no product to sell at all. You follow?
Sorry. I'm not following. How do end up wit moire money if I pay $3/mask than if I pay $1/mask?
quote:Perhaps you misread my post? or looked past supply-demand and cost forbearance aspects of it?
Nope. This is like saying if we paid all fast food workers $100 they would be come as economical valuable as people with welders making that kind of wage. Ironically, that's commonly the claim of minimum-wage advocates.
quote:You bring that up in this context because prior to tariffs you were importing them?
I cannot hire someone off the street, pay them $120/hr and transform them into a qualified data modeler and analyst.
quote:From a business owner, who literally just brought up the difficulty transforming a business, I'm a little surprised to see that dismissal.
Yet, the positive aspects -- re-shoring, employment opportunities, etc -- have yet to fully manifest.
---
Kinda like being 2-3 days away from signing an agreement.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 3:35 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:Is that inclusive of concomitant employment multiplier effects?
I already posted how many jobs we’d be talking about if the government forced every American company to only produce here. 3.5% of all the jobs in the country
Posted on 6/10/26 at 3:39 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Those jobs would have increased in numbers to meet demands.
No, they wouldn't, they would have decreased anyway due to automation.
Demand is factored in already, because that number is derived from simply counting all employees of all American manufacturing companies (whether they produce here or somewhere else) and subtracting the number of employees who produce here from that number. What's left is the number of jobs that could potentially be re-shored.
Also, you may have missed the FACT I posted above that our manufacturing output is greater than it was then with far fewer workers.
How does that fact fit into your shite theory?
This post was edited on 6/10/26 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 6/10/26 at 3:46 pm to Django Unchained
quote:
We used to be an enormously wealthy nation when revenues were collected from from countries wishing to do business in the United States.
True.
quote:
But free traders crafted a plan to shift revenue collection from international organizations to US Citizens via the income tax.
False.
I often wonder if any of yall were awake in history or social studies classes. And to be clear, the American consumer under DJT is paying both the tariff taxes AND income taxes PLUS the hidden inflation taxes. The average American is getting totally fricked by this administration. But MAGA, I guess?
Posted on 6/10/26 at 3:51 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Is that inclusive of concomitant employment multiplier effects?
Probably not.
Again, very few high end, well paying manufacturing jobs are being done elsewhere. The vast majority are still here. The re-shored jobs might be $17-$30 an hour jobs.
So what multiplier would you use to factor that in? 1.25?
O.k., so now we're talking about raising prices for everyone so that 4.4% of the American workforce can marginally benefit.
It's not a transformative element.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 3:54 pm to wackatimesthree
You seriously need to open your ears and eyes and read.
Expanson of jobs-loss of jobs due to automation is still a net positive over the alternative.
What you are saying is we lost jobs due to free trade and automation.
Its never been an either or. We did not have to push people into government assistance that the people with jobs have to be taxed for.
I dont care what angle you come with, free trade has been a negative for the USA.
Expanson of jobs-loss of jobs due to automation is still a net positive over the alternative.
What you are saying is we lost jobs due to free trade and automation.
Its never been an either or. We did not have to push people into government assistance that the people with jobs have to be taxed for.
I dont care what angle you come with, free trade has been a negative for the USA.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 3:57 pm to wackatimesthree
Look, if you guys don't care that prices will go up due to re-shoring labor, there's a hell of a lot easier way to accomplish this, and a much fairer one.
Rather than the government picking winners and losers, just pass a federal minimum wage of $40 an hour. The labor/price relationship/principle is exactly the same, so why not? Instead of trying to force certain types of jobs to relocate, just make the jobs we already have here super well paying.
It would be stupid, of course, but so are the tariffs for the purpose of "bringing jobs back," and for the same reason.
But at least it wouldn't be the government forcing everyone to subsidize a few. It would be the government forcing everyone to subsidize everyone.
Rather than the government picking winners and losers, just pass a federal minimum wage of $40 an hour. The labor/price relationship/principle is exactly the same, so why not? Instead of trying to force certain types of jobs to relocate, just make the jobs we already have here super well paying.
It would be stupid, of course, but so are the tariffs for the purpose of "bringing jobs back," and for the same reason.
But at least it wouldn't be the government forcing everyone to subsidize a few. It would be the government forcing everyone to subsidize everyone.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 3:59 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I do. But exceptional, generational infrequent, situations are a poor basis for building economic strategy, or investing capital. Plus, you left off counting the decades before I could have saved and used my capital more productively. If only Moderna had been investing researching SARS-COV-2 vaccines in the 1980s... damn, they could have made a "killing".
Because during the pandemic you could sell them for $15/mask ... if you had domestic manufacturing capacity. Meanwhile, if you outsourced prepandemic production to save cost, you had no product to sell at all. You follow?
quote:
Perhaps you misread my post? or looked past supply-demand and cost forbearance aspects of it?
You tell me. If productivity is driven by higher wages, why wouldn't businesses simply raise wages as high as possible until they get no more marginal gain? (hint: they do, that's why so many have turned to imports). quote:No. My point was that ? wages rarely directly translate into ? productivity.
You bring that up in this context because prior to tariffs you were importing them?
quote:
From a business owner, who literally just brought up the difficulty transforming a business, I'm a little surprised to see that dismissal.
It was a flippant response, as I assumed your's was as well. We do a lot of pricing and go-no-go decision making for clients. The effect's we've seen have pointed to more offshoring rather than on shoring opportunities. We've had multiple manufacturing clients that pay less tariffs by building overseas, because the tariffs are lower on completed goods than they are on raw materials. So those "not yet fully manifested" gains... are not coming without some serious policy changes.
The risk of tariffs going away post-Trump are... damn near a certainty. People aren't investing massive CAPEX in 3, 5, 7 year payoffs at this points based solely on marginal profits derived from tariffs. Hell, they weren't doing that two years ago.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:01 pm to Flats
quote:
I suspected you didn't understand the fallacy; now I know you don't. Wealth is lost in the broken window fallacy, not just reshuffled.
NO!
Wealth is not "lost". It is simply not acquired.
You are addressing potential wealth (shoes not yet made, which, but for the window might have been). In terms of currency, none is yet derived.
Addressing potential wealth in the BWF only weakens your argument further. Whereas the BWF shoemaker loses potential wealth, re-shored businesses enhance it.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:04 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:And the missing component... what happens to labor costs if the government forces more demand for labor? We don't have massive amounts of idle workers. So the 'employment multiplier effects' will only drive up costs on existing employers.
Again, very few high end, well paying manufacturing jobs are being done elsewhere. The vast majority are still here. The re-shored jobs might be $17-$30 an hour jobs.
So what multiplier would you use to factor that in? 1.25?
Making the assumption that increased wages will cause a greater increase in demand is literally the broken window theory.
I've said it before -- I'm not against tariffs. They have a time and place. But the US fits basically none of the criteria beyond nostalgia.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:05 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
You seriously need to open your ears and eyes and read.
You seriously need to go frick yourself. But that's another thread.
quote:
Expanson of jobs-loss of jobs due to automation is still a net positive over the alternative.
You don't even understand your own "theory." More people ended up on government assistance as jobs left the country, but not just because jobs left the country. Because the artificial wages collapsed as well. People started getting paid unskilled labor wages for doing unskilled labor for the low level manufacturing jobs that were left.
When artificial bubbles burst, that's the kind of thing that happens. Union-negotiated artificially inflated wages was a bubble, and it burst.
Again, if y'all like government forced artificially high wages, frick all this tariff nonsense and just start agitating for the $40 minimum wage. Problem solved, as far as you are concerned.
quote:
I dont care what angle you come with, free trade has been a negative for the USA.
You are in the wrong place. You need to go over to Bernie Sander's website or AOC's. They would agree with everything you're saying.
Populism always pulls left. Always.
This post was edited on 6/10/26 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:06 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I've said it before -- I'm not against tariffs. They have a time and place. But the US fits basically none of the criteria beyond nostalgia.
This is the correct answer.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:10 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
The risk of tariffs going away post-Trump are... damn near a certainty.
Also the correct answer, and one I posted upthread.
All of this is temporary.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:20 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
You seriously need to go frick yourself. But that's another thread.
And here we go. Can't rebut the facts so we turn to this.
quote:
More people ended up on government assistance as jobs left the country, but not just because jobs left the country.
Who said it was just due to that? This is you creating a falsehood and then argue against it.
The truth is what I stated. When free trade took the reins people lost jobs and wealth. It pushed people to some form of gov help. And here it is once more. It did not have to be that way.
What you are arguing is that the middle class(free trade wrecked!) could not afford to live in the USA until free trade came along.
Its the stupidest statement ever made on this topic except for those claiming the US gov was a socialist machine until FDR started taxing people and opened free trade.
quote:
Again, if y'all like government forced artificially high wages, frick all this tariff nonsense and just start agitating for the $40 minimum wage. Problem solved, as far as you are concerned.
Bless your heart. You actually think that. The results would be vastly different. But you do you .
quote:
You are in the wrong place. You need to go over to Bernie Sander's website or AOC's. They would agree with everything you're saying.
Once again wrong. But like I said, this is where you go when you lose the argument.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:20 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:Is that something you thought I was saying? Certainly, productivity can be attracted by higher wages. In some circumstances it can be driven by higher wages. But I'd not be one to make a blanket claim ITR.
If productivity is driven by higher wages
quote:See, I'd frame it differently -- I'd frame it as supply chain risk mitigation and security -- as important commensurate with any investment. E.g., Mask-makers now either inventory foreign supply in storage at overhead cost, or manufacture some portion of product here.
But exceptional, generational infrequent, situations
The larger point is stability of supply source. Supply stability takes on significant importance in areas of national need and/or security.
quote:Then, given Congressional spending inclinations, get ready for fiscal dominance
The risk of tariffs going away post-Trump are... damn near a certainty.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:32 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:A 0.4 - 4 secondary addition is the common range.
So what multiplier would you use to factor that in? 1.25?
1.0 would equate to 7% overall, 1° + 2°.
I've never seen an estimate as low as the 0.25 you're citing.
This post was edited on 6/10/26 at 4:33 pm
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:33 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
And here we go. Can't rebut the facts so we turn to this.
It was in direct response to YOUR insult, you fricking moron.
quote:
Who said it was just due to that?
Glad you asked.
quote:
The loss of manufacturing jobs contributed significantly to an increase in the number of people receiving government assistance.
However, the data points to two distinct ways this occurred: direct job loss and stagnant wages in the sector.
1. Direct Job Loss and DeindustrializationWhen manufacturing plants closed or downsized—often due to automation and global trade—thousands of workers lost relatively high-paying, middle-class careers.
The loss of these jobs created entire communities of displaced workers who were forced to rely on government safety nets, such as SNAP Food Benefits or disability programs.
2. The Rise of the "Working Poor"More recently, a notable driver of government assistance is the drop in wages within the manufacturing sector itself. Research from the UC Berkeley Labor Center found that roughly one in three American manufacturing workers relies on some form of public assistance.
This is largely due to a shift toward low-paying, temporary, or non-unionized positions.
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is the most common form of assistance for these workers, functioning as a necessary subsidy to help them meet basic living expenses.
So, the UC Berkeley Labor Center. (Cue the dismissal without consideration because the word "Berkeley" is in the name.)
Boy, we sure need more of those manufacturing jobs that people have to still be on government assistance to have. Transform our economy in no time! Amarite fellas? Amarite?
quote:
The truth is what I stated. When free trade took the reins people lost jobs and wealth.
I'm not disputing that. Sure, absolutely, when the artificially inflated wages bubble burst, absolutely people lost jobs and income.
The problem is your dishonest framing of these things. Like this one:
quote:
What you are arguing is that the middle class(free trade wrecked!) could not afford to live in the USA until free trade came along.
Ah, no, what I'm arguing is that unskilled labor doesn't (and can't) place someone in the middle class. Maybe if both spouses work full time they can climb into the bottom of the middle class, but that's about it.
You live in a fantasy in which you obviously feel like unskilled laborers are entitled to $80,000 a year jobs and you want the government nanny state to force that to happen.
quote:
Its the stupidest statement ever made on this topic
Well, you made it, not me, so sure, I'll agree.
quote:
Bless your heart. You actually think that.
No, moron, YOU think that. For some reason you tariff idiots can understand how establishing a minimum wage causes prices to rise, but can't understand how artificially raising wages through other means does the same thing.
quote:
Once again wrong. But like I said, this is where you go when you lose the argument.
Then you tell me. What exactly that you are arguing on this thread do you think either one of them would disagree with? Which of your points?
This is the thing with you populists. You can't see that you are leftists. Even when you are arguing leftist policies.
Short quiz: There was one other candidate in favor of tariffs during the 2016 primaries. Who was it?
This post was edited on 6/10/26 at 4:35 pm
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News